----- Original Message -----
From: "Asmus Freytag" <asmusf@ix.netcom.com>
To: "Karl Pentzlin" <karl-pentzlin@acssoft.de>; <unicode@unicode.org>
Sent: den 31 januari 2002 22:09
Subject: When to use markup: (Was:Introducing the idea of a "ROMAN VARIANT
SELECTOR" (was: Re: Proposing Fraktur))
> A more productive distinction would be along these lines:
>
> a) is the feature necessary for correctly expressing the content
Yes.
> b) is the feature rule based, and
Yes.
> b.1) is the rule implementable w/o knowledge of semantics, or
No.
> c) when implementing the feature, is it necessary to
> c.1) provide scope information, or
Yes.
> c.2) is local context sufficient
No.
> Leaving out italics from a document can not only change the level of
> emphasis, but for example in English, there are occasional circumstances
> where the use of italics removes a possible ambiguity in interpreting
> a sentence. Nevertheless (except for mathematics) italics were left to
> a higher level protocol (style markup).
Italics is better supported than Fraktur, as most word processors have an
option for using italics with any font installed on the computer. For
Fraktur one has to use a different font. There is no Fraktur font widely
spread on all Windows computers or something like that, so it's almost
impossible to use Fraktur text in any public document or similar w/o using
bitmaps to displaying the characters.
Why was Fraktur supported for mathematics, but not for old
Swedish/German/etc.?
Stefan
_________________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.2 : Sun Feb 03 2002 - 10:10:59 EST